Boston-Seattle play

[PS2Man]

Did anyone see the highlight from the Boston/Seattle game on Saturday?

Manny Ramirez originally at 1st base but was running to 3rd base on base hit. The ball was beat Manny to 3rd and he was tagged by the 3rd baseman. Right after the tag by the fielder the ball popped out of the glove, tipped around with the non-glove hand and finally caught in the air after a couple of bobbles. Manny was called out by the umpire.

Was the umpire correct to call Manny out? Could you give a rules reference to back up your claim. I think he was out by rule, but I have some doubt.

[Jurassic Referee]

The ump, Ron Kulpa, said after the game that the ball was held long enough before it came loose. Judgement call iow.

[scottyman51]

I disagree,but then again i'm a red sox fan so.....To me when the ball came out,and he next re-tagged Manny then Manny should have been safe.The ball never hit the ground so they said it could still be considered an out.

[Tim C]

Since we know that "voluntary release" is only in affect while a ball is "in flight" the only determining factor of this play is umpire judgement that the ball was secure when the tag was made.

Kulpa obviously thought that the ball was secure.

Pretty simple too me.

Regards,

[bluezebra]

"Voluntary release" is involved when tagging a base, not a runner. Such as on the pivot at 2B on a DP attempt. Or on a throw to 1B. Or when catching a batted ball.

Bob

[TussAgee11]

He had secured position during the duration of the tag. As he went to bring the glove to the hand, that's when the ball came out. Not really a transfer deal, but a "next thing he was trying to do" deal.

[UMP25]

It was Bruce's crew on that Crede play.

Using your logic, then, a player must always use his non-glove hand to remove the ball, because if he simply brings up his mitt to show the umpire he caught it and the ball pops out, it's a no catch.

Sorry, but if I judge the fielder had secure possession "long enough" to establish a catch and brings his mitt up to show me the ball, I'm ruling a catch.

[GarthB]

The "long enough" philosophy has been around in the MLB long enough to not be considered something thought of "on the fly."

[gsf23]

Originally Posted by UMP25

It was Bruce's crew on that Crede play.

Using your logic, then, a player must always use his non-glove hand to remove the ball, because if he simply brings up his mitt to show the umpire he caught it and the ball pops out, it's a no catch.

Sorry, but if I judge the fielder had secure possession "long enough" to establish a catch and brings his mitt up to show me the ball, I'm ruling a catch.

Sounds like a HTBT call, but if mearly lifting the glove to show me the ball causes it to pop out of the glove, I'd have to question just how secure the possession really was.